Reply
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: IAOMT deceptive Position Statement on Water Fluoridation

1,104 Views
Message 891 of 1,450

David,

 

You are correct, I miswrote.  The IAOMT is not THE primary evidence.  It is a compilation of primary evidence studies, some stronger and some weaker studies.  However, adequate to raise serious concerns.   (A list of primary references)

 

Now, go to those you rely on for your opinion, those who endorse fluoridation.  What is the primary sources they provide?  What is the list of primary references?   Mostly other opinions of like minded believers, reviews, committees of like minded believers and little primary evidence.  

 

And the NRC 2006 is another example of primary references.    ( A list of primary references)

 

In each of those, you will find some studies stronger and some weaker.  But the trend is serious concerns with over exposure.

 

Too much fluoride can be a serious risk.  We now have 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.(NHANES 2011)

 

David, we must weigh the research and use the same critical thinking for benefit.

 

You do not appear to accept any risk from excess fluoride because there are no RCTs, which are not ethical.

However, you accept weak studies on benefit and there are no RCT's but could be done.

And you accept weak studies on benefit which the FDA have ruled are "incomplete."

 

Strikes me as a double standard protecting your bias, based on endorsements of others supporting their positions.

 

We really do need to look at the studies on neurotoxicity.

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,268 Views
Message 892 of 1,450

Two that come to mind, where work was done at two institutions that was go at published when they were paid.by the second institution.

Im sure it happens when work spans a transfer between labs. 

 

But the questions I asked remain unanswered. Why for one is a person "fringe" for being the first to discover something?

 

Why should someone get no health treatment from a professional who happens to misunderstand one item while understanding other items well?

 

What gives a person a right to label someone as not opposing fluoridation simply because he does not conjoin FAN (even to the tune of a presumed seven million)? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,134 Views
Message 893 of 1,450

By the way, Richard, for the 6th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material?    Anybody?

 

Are you having a problem with the question, or are you really a fringe minority of one who believes this is an acceptable practice?

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,096 Views
Message 894 of 1,450

So there you have it. One cannot refer to a person as being "fringe" unless there are a majority who oppose him. No majority opposes my view that fluoride discharges in rivers where salmon spawn can, and did, affect salmon populations.  

So the view is not "fringe." it is merely an observation made first, where others don't bother to even look. Pretty simple really.

Claude Bernard was ostracized as some phoney when he discovcered that glucose is in the bloodstream even in people who eat no sugar. He turned out to be correct since humans metabolize glucose from consumed foods. We now know he was not "fringe" but instead observed something that was correct.  Just because someone is alone in thinking does not make him "fringe" as though he is in error.

And no one (except on this site) has criticized or disagreed with the deduction on fluoride discharges and salmon. So the "fringe" label is pretty absurd. 

Likewise, the idea that just because someone does not oppose fluoridation (or even may agree with it) does not mean he can't be trusted to do anything else. Two dentists I have gone to do very well with teeth repair or pulilnhg teeth, etc. But they assume that fluoride gels at 12,000 ppm might help teeth so they use it on those who allow it. He is wrong about the gels (all the fluoride that is not spit out is eventually swallowed since it only forms calcium fluoride globules on teeth surfaces that are easily dissolved upon eating/drinking). But neverftheless they are great at providing other services. The same is true for a doctor who can be excellent in many areas but wrong about one. 

I don't see why anyone would stop getting help from someone who simply doesn't know everything. In fact, no one knows everything. But because that is the case, we should not go for help from anyone because no one knows everything? Again, absurd.. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,096 Views
Message 895 of 1,450

Richard, this is a joke:  "There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem."

 

Response:  Yeah.  There is also not a single scientist who has published that Sunspots have nothing to do with ongoing salmon population problems either.  

 

Love your reasoning.

 

Show me a scientist who agrees with your fringe position that water fluoridation caused this.  As of now you are a fringe minority of One.  

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Trusted Contributor

Dodging questions

1,117 Views
Message 896 of 1,450

Richard Sauerheber – Your comment, "I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons", brings the conversation back to the questions you seem to be avoiding, for example the comments by by CarryAnne and Dr. Osmunson about those professionals who support community water fluoridation (CWF) or don't publically condemn the practice:

 

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corruptandvested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millionsandAgnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” 

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.

 

And comments To Dr. Johnson by Dr. Osmunson (07-09-2018 09:09 PM):

"CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing."
"Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the publicThey are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust."
"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation."

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

Do you accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims against the organizations they referenced and also, as I have asked them, against all members of the 100+ respected (except by anti-science activists) organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?

 

Whether you answer yes or no, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations?  If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are ignorant, willfully blind, mindless lemmings when it comes to the issue of fluoridation – and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?

 

Several additional questions about the scientific consensus: 
~> What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF? 

~> If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?

~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative? 
~> What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?

 

How would you describe the hundreds of thousands of members of the organizations who support CWF and have not publically denounced it? 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
4329
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,077 Views
Message 897 of 1,450

I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons, but who you are improperly counting in the seven million who didn't sign the FAN petition. 

They do not want to affiliate with FAN or do not endorse all that FAN has written, or many other reasons. 

So? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
4329
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,071 Views
Message 898 of 1,450

Me calling attention to fluoride discharges in rivers during a salmon collapse is claimed here to be extremist and out of the mainstream. But finding something others have nor noticed is not being extremist. It is simply being attentive. 

There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem. None. 

And yet I am argued to be wrong and extremist?

This discussion is quite amusing. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,047 Views
Message 899 of 1,450

By the way, for the 5th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material?    Anybody?

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,057 Views
Message 900 of 1,450

Sauerheber, your quote:  "Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation."

 

Response:  First of all, I never said they endorse or promote fluoridation.  They are not opposed to it.  You are.  You are fringe.  

 

You say, ""Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to,"  

 

Response:  If somebody is opposed to water fluoridation in this country, they are familiar with the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.  They just are.  That is were almost all of the misinformation & paranoia comes from.  So, if somebody is visiting that site, they have been asked to sign the statement.  

 

That 4500, or maybe it's up to 5000 now, represents the sum total of those whom FAN calls "professional" & "health care" workers.  It includes some doctors, some nurses, a few dentists, aromatherapists, chiropractors, among others, lawyers (for obvious reasons).  That's it.  

 

Face it, you are fringe, and your "Demand" of the AARP here is nothing more than a lame attempt to make you look more mainstream.  

 

You call optimally fluoridated water a "drug" in your attempt to generate paranoia.  No U.S. health agency agrees with you on that.  Not the CDC, not the FDA, not the EPA, not the USDPH, nobody.  

 

You have actually said that the Safe Drinking Water Act was originally written to halt the spread of fluoridation across the country.  (this thread ‎07-13-2018 12:46 PM)

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask? Check out the Health Tips forum today